>>      >     On 09/04/2017 06:21 AM, Troy Curtis Jr wrote:
>>      >      > I have a version of the gpsd package which I believe
>>     addresses this
>>      >      > ticket
>>     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390812.

The gpsd upstream just announced the imminent release of 3.17 (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gpsd-dev/2017-09/msg00003.html ).  Some of the changes involve direct support of python3 and the ability to specify the target python build.  So perfect for the Fedora python efforts!  I've already checked the build with python2 and python3 with the tests on my F26 box locally, and have begun prepping the spec file for the 3.17 drop, complete with python2 and python3 subpackages.

So with that I have a couple of questions:
1. Since the PR for the python2 subpackage split just happened (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gpsd/pull-request/1 ), does it make sense to just delete that one and await the 3.17 version bump as well as the better versioned python support?  And if so, would you prefer a squashed commit with all changes? Or is there no preference?

2. One change I noticed with 3.17 is renaming libgpsd.pc -> libgps.pc.  This is a very sensible change, since the pkgconfig is for the library (libgps) and not the executable (gpsd).  If the depending packages are looking for the old pkgconfig name, what is the best way to go about having the coordinated packages for them?  Just mention in other PR for the downstream packages that the name change is dependent on this particular gpsd version?